Hiking Tax Proposal

[Bonecollector]

We've debated this scenario on this forum in the past. Interesting to see it getting some traction.

https://www.wyofile.com/going-for-a-hike-it-may-soon-cost-you/

 

[Blackdawg]

This should take place nationwide, all users should help support opportunities for recreating on public lands. Everyone else pays to play!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[go_deep]

Think the price should be equal to the cheapest hunting or fishing license. If you hold any active hunting or fishing license, then you'd exempt from purchasing this permit.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

I really have mixed emotions about this. One thought is... yes get everybody who uses a resource that requires spending of public monies for upkeep, to pay a reasonable fee.

On the other hand there is lots of opportunity for overcharging and mismanagement. The USFS is allowed to charge "user fees" in certain popular areas if they have "improvements". Lots of popular places like Sedona, Az have small parking areas and a trash can. They are supposed to use the money generated to maintain the location. They hired law enforcement personnel and write lots of tickets. No accountability of money spent as far as I can see.

Just sayin...........

 

[graybird]

I'm all for everyone needs to pay their portion of the costs. Yet, I'm not sure how something like this could be enforced.

 

[HuskyMusky]

agreed on one hand, charge everyone, the price of a hunting license, btw would non-residents then have to pay like $150 vs $10? ha!

but then non hunter hikers might be demanding a bigger piece of the pie??

I still would bet the average hunter sees more wilderness than the average hiker/non-hunter, of course there are some serious hikers out there too. Maybe it's close, who really knows?

I know there are plenty who drive up, park, walk a block, get back in the car and drive off, and had a great hike!

 

[CrimsonArrow]

I've never really hiked just to hike, there's always been hunting or fishing involved, but I am firmly against charging people just to walk on public ground. It's strictly a principle thing, that everyone should have equal opportunity to enjoy the outdoors. Perhaps if there are designated hiking trails in areas closed to hunting, users should pay a fee for maintenance and building new trails.

 

[dirtclod Az.]

There is money/taxes paid to Dept.of Parks and Rec. they empty said garbage cans,police campgrounds,etc.Where is that $$ going?Pack it in Pack it out...

 

[Wyoming Hart]

Just another example of paying for something that we already paid for, ie real estate tax.

 

[jtm307]

I'd rather see more hikers volunteer to maintain trails. Trails that are wanted will be maintained. Trails seldom used will not be. If a bureaucracy is in charge of allocating resources, those unwanted trails will be maintained unnecessarily, consuming resources that would be better used elsewhere. Forcing freeloaders to pay actually encourages waste. I'm not interested in punishing freeloaders. I AM interested in making sure resources aren't wasted.

 

[JimP]

I think that a lot of hikers would support a small fee that went towards the trails and clean up.

Colorado started a voluntary fee for hikers to purchase for search and rescue and it went over fairly well and quite a few of the hikers/non hunters that I know of supported it.

 

[dirtclod Az.]

I would donate to Search and Rescue.My family are volunteers in Az.Search and Rescue.307 has the right Idea have garbage/waste bags at trailheads for users to help pick up refuse along the trail.

 

[badgerbob]

I've never really hiked just to hike, there's always been hunting or fishing involved, but I am firmly against charging people just to walk on public ground. It's strictly a principle thing, that everyone should have equal opportunity to enjoy the outdoors. Perhaps if there are designated hiking trails in areas closed to hunting, users should pay a fee for maintenance and building new trails.

I agree. And with your other post pointing out the miss use of funds. Seems like every time the government gets involved in something, it becomes complicated and expensive....

 

[kidoggy]

I think we need a pooping and peeing tax . in fact ,why stop there ? let's tax the air we breath. and why not have a tax for slapping mosquitoes??? they are people to.

 

[kidoggy]

I agree. And with your other post pointing out the miss use of funds. Seems like every time the government gets involved in something, it becomes complicated and expensive....

no government in the history of humanity has ever solved a problem it did not first create

 

[kidoggy]

I think that a lot of hikers would support a small fee that went towards the trails and clean up.

Colorado started a voluntary fee for hikers to purchase for search and rescue and it went over fairly well and quite a few of the hikers/non hunters that I know of supported it.

most probably wouldn't. the problem arises because a small fee never remains a small fee when governments become involved.

if we agree to this tax it will not be long before they implement a tax to tax the tax.

 

[jtm307]

I don't see the right-of-center legislators going for this. I'd be very surprised if it went very far. I think the tax is a bad idea, BUT if the public truly owns "public" land, then the public needs to take some ownership over taking care of the land. A tax may actually hinder such "ownership-taking" by making people think "I don't have to pick up that trash or remove that fallen tree. That's why I pay a tax to pay someone else to do it."

My own personal opinion is that the fewer human-made roads and trails through wild land, the better. The privilege of enjoying wilderness should be reserved for those willing to sweat for it.

 

[HighPlainsHunter]

This is tough as once you start digging into USFS duties/responsibilities for things like trail maintenance there are many angles to consider and is typically a sore subject for those who work for the USFS.

From my perspective I would like to see more LEO presence to deter the vandalism, off roading, poaching, and other misuse of the USFS and BLM land. This could be one way to pay for that.

We also need to understand where recreation falls in the USFS mission. Is the USFS here to manage forests? Fight fires? Operate free trade schools? Public recreation? Wildlife? Grazing? Maintain roads/fences?

One thing that amazes me is that USFS offices are primarily closed on weekends yet it would appear that public recreation, which is the purpose of those offices located in our national forests, is highest on those two days. Any other business would never be closed on it's busiest two days. Just having USFS employees working on the weekends would probably help curb a lot of the issues we have with vandalism, trash dumping, off roading, etc...